The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 10-31-2009, 03:48 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
My worst monarchs would have to be Stephen, Richard I (for spending no time in England), Richard II and III, Mary I, King George I (for the same reason as Richard II) and Edward VIII.
__________________

__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 10-31-2009, 04:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacomartin View Post
I am basing my opinion of Edward on more than just the Time magazine article. Wallis Simpson was only the latest of a series of married women. His father was disgusted by his behavior
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
[Well, an almost identical post could be made about the present Prince of Wales, which I would agree with. Many Charles lovers would defend him to the death for the same. I find it very ironic that the same posters who villify Edward (and Wallis), who stepped down and put the country first, above his own selfish desire to be King, defend Charles and Camilla and shout how Camilla should be Queen. Most ironic.


I actually don't see Edward as putting the country first at all. He put his country a long second to his selfish desires to have a woman deemed unworthy by the standards of the day.

If Charles were living in 1936 who knows whether he would have been allowed to marry Camilla and still be king. Many will argue that of course he wouldn't as Camilla has a still living ex-husband and thus is in the same as Wallis but... is Charles the same as Edward or would Charles have been a solid king and so the government had no reason to get rid of him and thus wouldn't have raised the issue of his choice of wife being a divorcee? A 'what if' question to which we can never know the answer but still fun to consider.

Personally I think that Charles has been a better Prince of Wales with more substance e.g. the Princes Trust, rather than just a pretty boy PoW who opened things but didn't really achieve all that much except popularity as PoW. As a result I think that Charles would have handled the job of King better in 1936 and so the government would have been reluctant to let him go over the issue of his wife and would have found a way to accommodate his wishes to marry Camilla.

The personalities involved also have to be considered when discussing Edward and comparing him to Charles.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 10-31-2009, 06:08 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 103
Quote:
Well, an almost identical post could be made about the present Prince of Wales, which I would agree with.
I don't see any substantial similarity between Charles and his great uncle Edward. Charles had a life long love for Camilla and he married a woman more for what the public wanted then himself. Edward had repeated affairs with married women when he was one of the most eligible bachelors in the world.

It doesn't look as if Edward ever wanted to be king. That doesn't make him a bad human being, since most people wouldn't want a life like that. But the original question is to list some of the worst British monarchs. A monarch who spent most of his adult life thinking that he didn't want the position has to be among the worst.

Similarly Richard I didn't seem interested in the position. He never learned English very well, didn't spend any time there, and nearly bankrupt the country with his crusades and his capture and subsequent ransom. He is one of the worst British monarchs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 10-31-2009, 06:51 AM
Wisteria's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maidenhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 632
I agree about Richard I. King John in the Robin Hood legends is always called bad, but while his brother was off gallivanting and satisfying some private need for war and crusades, John was back in England managing the affairs of the country. Richard I was an extremely bad King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 10-31-2009, 09:20 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

And yet, Richard I has a magnificent statue right at the front door to Parliament; and poor John has "nothing"... Go figure......

Being called "Lionheart" certainly helps his reputation all round; while poor John is denigrated for having to sign (forcebly) the Magna Carta...

Hollywood doesn't help either in the movie "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938), where John is bad and Richard good!

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 10-31-2009, 09:30 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,185
Or the present Robin Hood series on BBC America which continues with the stereotypes.

As usual, there is a good brother (Richard) and a bad brother (John).

Of course it doesn't help that John seemed to covet Richard's throne. But what can you do? It was a sign of the times. Somestimes you had to worry more about your ambitious brother than a cousin.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 10-31-2009, 09:40 AM
doudi's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: somewhere in my country, Algeria
Posts: 7
hi,
for my point of view,the worst british monarch during the history of great britain was Mary or Bloody Mary because she was not tolerant with the protestants after the death of King Edward,and she ordered to execute 300 protestants.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 10-31-2009, 09:42 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,185
True but honestly the same can be said of Elizabeth I or any monarch who wasnt tolerant of other religions.

I think the problem with Mary (including her burning of Protestants) was that she had such a screwed up childhood and relationship with her father, that she was spent too much time looking for love (her husband Phillip), worrying about insurgents (those who put Lady Jane Grey on the throne and those who supported Elizabeth) and not enough time trying to rule fix England.

She appears to have had a really messed up life.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 10-31-2009, 10:01 AM
Wisteria's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maidenhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Or the present Robin Hood series on BBC America which continues with the stereotypes.

As usual, there is a good brother (Richard) and a bad brother (John).

Of course it doesn't help that John seemed to covet Richard's throne. But what can you do? It was a sign of the times. Somestimes you had to worry more about your ambitious brother than a cousin.
I suppose most of the problem was that John was doing all the work and governing but did not actually sit on the throne, I think instead of coveting the crown he wanted justice and perhaps thanks for the work he was doing.
History and legend made sure he never got this recognition completely.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 10-31-2009, 11:01 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi again,

I forgot to mention one more thing about the Richard/John history:

Their deaths:-
Richard died a somewhat heroic death, having been wounded (by arrow) in battle. He couldn't have chosen a better end, if he's written it himself....
John was fleeing (his barons, I think) and died of dysentry, after losing the Treasury in a swamp. What a miserable end for anyone, let alone a monarch....

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 10-31-2009, 12:38 PM
Patra's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern, United States
Posts: 2,208
My vote for worst british monarch would be Richard I. Maybe this would be fun in a poll by one of the moderators? Just a thought.....
__________________
Patra
God is in the Details.....
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 10-31-2009, 04:56 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 103
It would be a tough poll since how do you compare Henry the 8th with 72,000 executions during his 36 year reign (who may have weighed 400 lbs at his death), with George IV who was also known for being fat, and having disgusting personal habits and an uncontrollable libido.
- I imagine some monarchs could easily end up on the best and worst list. If you consider William the Conqueror and Henry the 8th to be mass murderers and at the same time they were instrumental in creating the county.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 10-31-2009, 11:49 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,158
It makes one think, too, about how societal beliefs and feelings would also affect the man or woman on the throne. For example, as pointed out above, would Prince Charles have fared better in 1936 than Edward VIII? And would Edward VIII's love of Wallis Simpson have still cost him the throne in 2009? So not only must the personalities of the individuals be taken into account but also the feelings of the country.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 10-31-2009, 11:54 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,185
IMO the situation would have been the same in 1936 if it was Charles or Edward. The facts are still the same: The POW was in love with and wanted to marry a divorced woman whose husband was still alive. Just as in 2009, Edward marrying Wallis wouldn't be such a big deal.

Charles, benefited from Edward's experience in a variety of ways: a royal heir wanting to marry a divorced woman had already been done so it wasn't so shocking, times had changed --- certain things were no longer a deal breaker and society has become a little more relaxed (too relaxed according to some) and the role of the government as it relates to royal marriages. Let's face it...in times such as these they (the government) have more important things to worry about (economy, war, social ills, expense reports) than a member of the BRF marrying a divorced woman.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 11-01-2009, 12:05 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
You therefore accept that the government didn't want to get rid of Edward and seized on a convenient excuse whereas I believe that they would have done everything possible to force him out as he was simply unsatisfactory and a real threat to national security at times with leaving documents around for anyone to read (including the German ambassador at one stage). The government had even stopped sending him some information due to fear of what he might do with it e.g. let Wallis see it - afterall there is the story of a paper being marked 'Confidential - For Your Eyes Only' that was passed to Edward to read and then the relevant minister had Wallis talking to him about it over dinner.

I don't see Charles as doing that which is why I do think that the government wouldn't have needed to get rid of Charles and thus a solution to him marrying Camilla would have been found. In addition of course, Charles already has two heirs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 11-01-2009, 12:12 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,185
Iluvbertie, you stated very valid points but I was specifically responding to Vassiloss Markos and he referenced " how societal beliefs and feelings" not the feelings of the government in regards to Edward's vs. Charles' work ethic.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 11-01-2009, 02:01 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
I don't think you can separate the governmental beliefs in this instance because the majority of the people were in favour of Edward in 1936 and against Charles in 2005 and yet the people didn't get their wish either time because the government had its say.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 11-01-2009, 07:01 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,158
I am enjoying this discussion. It appears that public sentiment alone may succumb to governmental desire. But with relaxation of social mores, do you think there is any possiblity if Charles wants Camilla to be his Queen, he just might be successful? I realize this is getting off post but with many considering Edward VIII to be one of the worst monarchs because of his selfish desire to be with Wallis, what about Charles wanting to see his wife crowned? Would the public's affection for Diana allow this? Or the government?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 11-02-2009, 09:25 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
... but with many considering Edward VIII to be one of the worst monarchs because of his selfish desire to be with Wallis...
More than just Wallis, it was his apparent selfishness in general and lack of sense of 'duty' that concerned those who knew him.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 11-02-2009, 11:18 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,158
Good point, Warren, the public often sees through a public posture and gets to the heart of the matter
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british monarchs


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Coronation of British Monarchs Josefine British Royals 214 06-27-2014 08:37 PM
Unexpected Monarchs auntie Royalty Past, Present, and Future 72 12-05-2013 07:40 PM
Monarchs of Norway norwegianne Norwegian Royal History 0 11-10-2007 03:31 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:05 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]